Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_09_09 Planning Board Minutes AMENDED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 9, 1998, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S. Reader, Chairwoman May W. Aisen Richard H. Darsky Linda S. Harrington C. Alan Mason 4 Edmund Papazian RECEIVED I Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel OCT 21 1998 Antonio V.Ronald A. Carpaneto, Directorl of Bung ilding Engineer TPATRIOWN CLERK � !`'?I N.Y.MAMARONECK Katie Cullen, Public Stenographers Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 40 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:17 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Reader asked if the Board members had reviewed the draft Minutes of August 5, 1998 and if there were any amendments. After some discussion, on a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the Amended Minutes were unanimously approved. Chairwoman Reader read the application as follows: PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN APPROVAL - Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. -24 Valley Place - Block 131 Lot 36 On a motion made by Mr. Darsky, seconded by Ms. Aisen, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be, and hereby is, declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Henry Meltzer for AIM Services, Inc., the architect representing Beechmont Bus Service, appeared. Mr. Meltzer asked if there was anyone in the public present regarding this matter. There being no one, Mr. Meltzer reviewed the project stating that Beechmont Bus Service had been renting 24 Valley Place, which it recently purchased. Beechmont Bus Service is also currently renting a building adjacent to 24 Valley Place and may terminate that lease at the end of the year. By law, the company must have a certain number of bays to service the buses. Many communities in the area are served, including the Town of Mamaroneck. The property currently has two bays The applicant is proposing to double that space to four bays, in addition to adding a small amount of office space on the second floor. The space being used for the expansion is in an area where buses are currently being parked. Those buses will be brought inside Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 2 the building. The applicant will be making a substantial number of improvements to the property. In addition to the expansion, the same exterior finish materials will be maintained. The entire property will be repaved, with a proposed concrete curb along the property to retain the water that is currently running from the property onto the street. A trench drain is proposed at the existing gate to capture the water from the rain, which will be directed into the existing New Rochelle storm water system connection currently in the street. A new oil separator is being installed, so that any oil that drops from the buses will be separated out of the system before it goes into the sanitary system in the street. Evergreen trees will be planted in the front of the property, which will make the property much more attractive to the surroundings. Dr. Mason asked Mr. Meltzer if the sanitary system referred to in his presentation is the storm system. Mr. Meltzer said he meant storm system. Ms. Reader asked about the research on the types of soaps used. Mr. Meltzer said the applicant does not use soap, but a high-powered spray to clean the buses. Mr. Meltzer said an engineer's drawing was not available at the last meeting, but he has since submitted and distributed same. He received a copy of the comments from the Town's consultant, Mr. Athey. Mr. Meltzer said he spoke to his engineer and accepts the recommendations as stated. Mr. Papazian asked where the treated water goes from the oil separator. Dr. Mason said that treated water from the oil separator goes across the street toward Fifth Avenue, at which time a discussion ensued regarding the storm water drain system in that area. Mr. Meltzer said he will have to get the appropriate approvals on the hookup to drains. Ms. Reader questioned item#2 in the September 9, 1998 letter from the CZMC which states, "in reference to the interior oil/water separator, the plan should read "oil/water separator will be equipped with coalescing filter media and shall be sized in accordance with API publication#421". Ms. Reader asked about item#4, "correspondence should be obtained from the appropriate State and/or County" and asked Mr. Meltzer if that had been approved. Mr. Meltzer said it has not been approved. The applicant has been asked to do that, at this time. Ms. Reader said that item#1, "the proposed interior oil/water separator appears to be oversized" does not matter to the Board. Ms. Reader stated item#2 should be a condition, and asked if item#3 should also be a condition. Ms. Gallent said item#4 does not need to be a condition, but it can be if the Board prefers. A discussion ensued regarding the various conditions to be included if approval is granted and the connection of the oil/water separators on the plan are revised. Mr. Capicotto noted that it appears from the site plan that the oil separators tie into the sewer rather than the storm drain. Dr. Mason said the interior oil/water separator goes into the sanitary sewer. The exterior oil/water separators goes into the storm drain. Mr. Capicotto explained and demonstrated on the plans before the Board, the sanitary sewer and storm water drains going into the drainage manhole. Mr. Meltzer said the applicant wants to keep the storm water separator from the oil separators. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 3 Dr Mason said the Board would not want the storm runoff in the sanitary system, nor the interior spillage cleanup going into the storm water system. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the interior and exterior separators and the drainage of same into the storm water and sanitary sewer systems, as shown on the plans before the Board. Ms. Gallent said a revised plan should be submitted that reflects the changes. Ms. Reader asked if there were any questions or comments from the Board or the public. Ms. Elizabeth Rafalski said she owns a house at 22 Valley Place. She asked Mr. Meltzer where 26 Valley Place is and where the buses are parked. Mr. Meltzer addressed that issue. Ms. Reader asked if there is a sign stating "Beechmont Bus Service, Inc." Mr. Meltzer said he did not think so, but it is very clear it is a one-story bus parking facility. Ms. Reader suggested that the record reflect a member of the community is being shown the tax map, indicating the location of the piece of property in question. Ms. Rafalski asked what is going to be done with the oil tanks, as there has been spillage. Mr. Meltzer said he is not aware of the spillage,but three tanks were removed with the proper engineering approvals with safety devices on them in case of a spill which cost in the neighborhood of$40,000. This is required to be done this year by State Law. Ms. Reader asked if there was anything on the plan referring to the oil tanks, which was addressed. Mr. Meltzer said the pipe coming out of the ground is used for heating oil. Ms. Rafalski is also concerned about the volume of traffic. Mr. Meltzer said there will be no increase in the volume of traffic. The facility will be used for maintaining and parking buses. The building will be used to service buses inside rather than outside. There is currently no space to store more buses in the area. Ms. Rafalski said the area is very crowded, no one can pass on the street. Mr. Meltzer reiterated that there will be no increase in the volume of traffic. Ms. Reader said the applicant is increasing the number of bays from two to four and asked why there will be no increase in the volume of traffic. Mr. Meltzer responded that the same number of buses will be serviced, but instead of being serviced outdoors, they will be serviced indoors. The currently occupied building, that the applicant is proposing the addition to, only has two bays. The adjacent building currently being used, is being used for bus maintenance. The applicant does not own that building and will probably cease using that building in the near future. Ms. Reader asked where the buses are stored. Mr. Meltzer said the buses are stored to the right of the property, and on Fifth Avenue at different locations. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 4 Ms. Reader said the buses are not stored on the property? Mr. Meltzer said about six or eight buses stored on the property are for maintenance and employee parking. Ms. Reader asked what happens when buses remain on the property overnight. Mr. Meltzer said the buses are put inside. Every bus has to have a spot. Buses are sent out for major service. Mr. Capicotto asked if cleaning is done within the building and the interior separator is tied into the sanitary sewer, it should not make too much of a difference. Mr. Meltzer said the buses are taken out to be cleaned. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments from the public or the Board. There being none, Ms. Reader read into the record the proposed Negative Declaration which had been prepared by counsel. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Ms. Harrington, the following Negative Declaration was unanimously ADOPTED: Beechmont Bus Service Co.,Inc.has applied to the Town of Mamaroneck Planning Board for site plan approval for the construction of a two-story addition to an existing one-story building located at 24 Valley Place (Block 131, Lot 36) (the "Property") (the "Proposed Action"). The Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 617.4 and 617.5; Town of Mamaroneck Code §§ 92-7(A) and 92-7(B). The Long Form EAF submitted by the applicant reveals that the only area of potential impact is storm water runoff and drainage. However, no significant impacts on drainage are anticipated because, as shown on the drainage and erosion control plan submitted to the Board, dated August 26, 1998, the Proposed Action includes a variety of measures that will control runoff from the site and insure that it has no negative impact on the surrounding area.' Specifically, all interior shop waste water from the Proposed Action as well as existing facilities will be directed to a coalescing type oil/water separator; the existing undercarriage washing pit will either be plugged or connected to the coalescing oil/water separator; roof drainage will be introduced directly into the storm sewer without being tied into any oil/water separators; the storm water collection system within all paved areas of the facility will be connected to a new box-type oil/water separator as shown on the drainage and erosion control plan,dated August 26, 1998 and subject to the correction set forth in footnote 1; no soaps, surfactants or any hazardous materials will be used; and proper maintenance of the separators will ensure their functioning and compliance with design specifications and accumulated waste will be removed quarterly and disposed of properly. Moreover, the Proposed Action will not result in the addition of any impervious area to the site, because the construction will take place on a portion of the lot that is already paved. Accordingly, the Proposed Action will not result in any significant impacts on drainage or storm water runoff in the area. By letters dated, July 28, 1998 and September 9, 1998, the Coastal Zone Management Commission indicated that the Proposed Action, as presented to the Board with the measures described above, is consistent with the policies of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). ' The applicant indicated he will provide a corrected drainage and erosion control plan that will connect the exterior oil/water separator to the proposed storm drain. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 5 The Proposed Action will be located in an area of the Town that is already used for businesses similar to the proposed Action. Accordingly, there will be no negative impact on the character of the area, which is a Service Business District. This application was referred to the New York State Thruway Authority,which indicated that it has no objection to the Proposed Action as long as drainage improvements direct runoff away from its adjacent property. The Planning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck has concluded that the Proposed Action will not result in any large and/or important impacts. Accordingly, the Planning Board hereby finds that the Proposed Action would have no significant environmental effect. This negative declaration has been prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. On a motion made by Dr. Mason, seconded by Mr. Papazian, the following certification was unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS, Beechmont Bus Service, Inc. has submitted an application for Site Plan Approval for the premises located at 24 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Lot 36 ; and RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action under SEQRA; and RESOLVED, that based upon review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), the Board concludes that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact pursuant to SEQRA; and, therefore adopts a Negative Declaration which is on file with the Board. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed all of the submissions by, and on behalf of the applicant, all correspondence from Town officials, the Consulting Engineer to the Town, and the Coastal Zone Management Commission and members of the public, and Public Hearings have been held pursuant to notice on September 9, 1998; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Site Plan Approval is hereby GRANTED for the application submitted by Beechmont Bus Service, Inc., subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein: I. General Requirements All site work, landscaping, storm water drainage and treatment systems shall be in accordance with the plans submitted, as follows: 1. Consistent with the requirements of the Costal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) letter dated September 9, 1998, the oil/water separator shall be equipped with coalescing filter media and shall be sized in accordance with API publication #421. 2. The applicant request written confirmation from the appropriate State and/or County agencies that any proposed discharge to the sanitary or storm sewer systems is in compliance with all applicable State and County codes, and submit to the Town a copy of that letter and any responses thereto. 3. The applicant shall submit a corrected plan for drainage and erosion control showing the exterior oil separator connected to the proposed 12 in. PVC storm drain, rather than the sanitary sewer. Such corrected plan shall be approved by the Town Consulting Engineer and Director of Building. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 6 II. Special Requirements A. Water Retention and Drainage This approval is subject to final approval of drainage plans by the Town's Consulting Engineer. B. Erosion and Sediment Control - (During Construction) 1. Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be based on the standards presented in the Town of Mamaroneck Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Law. 2. The control plan shall include a construction timetable and an inspection schedule. Mr. Meltzer complimented the Board and its consultants, both of which he has found to be very highly professional. Dr. Mason said the kind words are appreciated. On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Ms. Darsky, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing he, and hereby is, declared closed. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Rick Bernstein -24 Winged Foot Drive - Block 204 Lot 310 Benedict Salanitro appeared on behalf of Rick Bernstein, along with Mr. Bernstein. Mr. Salanitro said he is proposing to gain additional benefits from the use of the property at 24 Winged Foot Drive by filling in and erecting a retaining wall to the rear of the property and also erecting a 4 ft. high chain-link fence above the proposed retaining wall. An erosion control plan has been filed with the Town and is scheduled to be heard at the September 23, 1998 Zoning Board meeting, for a variance for the height of the wall. Mr. Salanitro will answer any questions or concerns the Board may have, and feels the project proposes no environmental impact to the Leatherstocking Trail. It is in the Flood Zone X, which is outside the 500- year flood plain. Mr. Bernstein presented a petition, marked as exhibit#1, signed by seven residents who live along the trail and are in favor of the project. Ms. Reader asked if the retaining wall will be constructed of railroad ties, which Mr. Salanitro said was correct. The retaining wall proper is in the rear and in order for it to blend into the existing topography there are two wings that will blend into the zero grade so it will be all level. Ms. Reader asked if it will slope down. Mr. Salanitro said the property currently slopes down. He presented, explained and discussed the photographs, marked exhibit#2, with the Board. Dr. Mason asked the purpose for the request. Mr. Bernstein said the request is two-fold. It is a dangerous back yard for his children, a 3 year old, one year old and there is a child on the way. The drop in certain places is approximately 6 ft. straight down. The children are not able to play in the back yard without supervision. Secondly, most of the back yard is not functional, because of the grade. By filling it in, the yard will be functional. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 7 Ms. Aisen asked if the rocks will be covered. Mr. Bernstein said portions of the rocks will not be covered. Ms. Reader asked if all the intended work will be done within the property line. Mr. Bernstein said that all the intended work will be done within the property line, with the exception of one small portion of the fence line which will go a little bit further into the Trail by a few feet where the property line is, but not the fence. Ms. Reader said that the CZMC asked for a survey, and if that has been provided. Mr. Bernstein said it was staked out by Aristotle Boumazos on May 21, 1998. He said the survey has been made available for all applications. Ms. Reader asked consistent with the survey, is all the work being done within Mr. Bernstein's property line, with which Mr. Bernstein agreed. Mr. Papazian asked how much fill will be brought in. Mr. Salanitro said approximately 425 cubic yards of fill will be brought in. Mr. Papazian asked how the fill that is brought in will affect runoff. Mr. Salanitro said it decreases the rate of runoff. With the slopes and rock this is a level plain and the filled in material is more pervious. Dr. Mason asked if there will be a gravel base. Mr. Salanitro said there is gravel behind the wall for drainage and all the fill will be cleaned and free from any foreign matter, concrete, blacktop, wood, clay, etc. Dr. Mason asked how much of a band of gravel will be put behind the wall. Mr. Salanitro said currently a 12 in. vertical band is shown behind the wall. Dr. Mason asked if railroad ties will be used or 4 x 4's. Mr. Salanitro said 8 ft. x 8 ft. pressure treated railroad ties will be used. Dr. Mason asked if there will be lateral tie-ins. Mr. Salanitro said there will be lateral tie-ins, the details of which are on the plan. Dr. Mason said he is curious about whether or not 1 ft. of gravel is enough. Mr. Salanitro addressed that issue, stating the gravel shown is more than adequate. Dr. Mason asked how much surface area will be produced by the work being done. Mr. Salanitro said the surface area does not increase or decrease. The level area increases by approximately 2,500 to 3,000 sq. ft. Mr. Darsky asked how the fill will be delivered. Mr. Salanitro said the fill will be delivered with small trucks. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Reader asked about stockpiling the fill. Mr. Salanitro said the wall will be erected first. Ms. Aisen asked if the driveway will go around the back. Mr. Bernstein said there is landscaping on the left side of the house which must be removed and the front left side will be used for the driveway. Ms. Harrington asked the height of the back retaining wall. Mr. Salanitro said it is shown not to exceed 5 ft. 6 in. Most of the height of the wall is at 5 ft. Ms. Aisen said the plan shows 6 ft. Mr. Salanitro said the plan was revised, subsequent to the application, to 5 ft. 6 in. Dr. Mason asked if Mr. Bernstein has any land on the back side of the wall. Mr. Bernstein said the wall itself is on the property line. Ms. Reader said the other issue the CZMC raised is that the retaining wall shall be located far enough onto the residents property, to ensure that construction activities do not disturb Town Conservation Area property. Dr. Mason asked if there is any area of space on the other side of the wall away from the house that is still his property. Mr. Bernstein said there is no area of space on the other side of the wall away from the house that is still Mr. Bernstein's property. Dr. Mason suggested plantings would be nice. Mr. Bernstein said in response to discussions with the neighbors he is planning to plant ivy on the sides. Mr. Darsky said the trail is so dense nothing is needed. A discussion ensued regarding the trail's density. Mr. Bernstein asked that the picture exhibits be provided for the Zoning Board meeting to be held on September 23, 1998, which the secretary will do. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Capicotto said the only concern would be in a heavy storm. As there will still be a slope going toward the wall on the property if there is a sheet flow of water Mr. Capicotto would like a curb at the wall from grade and a 3 in. or 4 in. curb where the soil ends, to avoid eroding the trail below. Mr. Salanitro asked Mr. Capicotto if the height of the wall will be 4 in. greater than the finished proposed grade, would this meet Mr. Capicotto's concern. Mr. Capicotto indicated it would. Dr. Mason said he would still like to see some vegetation. Mr. Bernstein said the only reason that was chosen not to be done, is that a black chain-link fence is proposed to be installed to make it as transparent as possible between Mr. Bemstein's home and the trail. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 9 Dr. Mason said he still would like the vegetation on the wall. Mr. Bernstein said he met with the landscape architect, who said the ivy would grow upwards also. Mr. Darsky said it cannot be seen from the trail. Mr. Papazian asked if anything would grow on that side, at which time a discussion ensued. Ms. Reader asked if some form of vegetation would weaken the wall. Mr. Salanitro he would not want to see the weep-holes become solidified with overgrowth, but would rather have the natural state of the wall, as shown, for drainage purposes and stability as well. Mr. Capicotto said the applicant should address item#3 in the CZMC letter, dated 9/3/98, in regard to the installation of drywells. Ms. Reader asked how far the roof is from the fence. Mr. Salanitro said approximately 70 ft. from the furthest point and 45 ft. from the closest point. Ms. Reader said at that distance, is there an impact on drainage from the roof? A discussion ensued regarding this matter, with Mr. Capicotto explaining the dry well collects the water and routes it away from the wall. Ms. Reader asked if the weep-holes are drainage holes. Mr. Salanitro said they are. Dr. Mason said he is concerned because the land is fairly steep with a rock ledge under it, there is not too much soil and the applicant is proposing to install quite a bit of soil. Gravel underneath will provides some dispersement of the water. Mr. Salanitro said bank-run type material will most likely be used, which is more drainable and does not compact. Dr. Mason said he would like a 6 in. gravel base before the dirt is installed,to provide a way for the water to get out. Mr. Salanitro said the rock itself will act as a conduit for that water once it gets to that point. Ms. Reader asked if there were any other comments or questions from the Board. Ms. Gallent said this matter was referred to the CZMC. Ms. Gallent said this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore no further action is required under SEQRA. Ms. Reader said that the matter is adjourned for a Public Hearing to the October 14, 1998 Planning Board meeting. Chairwoman Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION - FRESHWATER WETLANDS AND WATER COURSES PERMIT - Christopher P. Knopp 28 Bonnie Way - Block 104 Lot 52.1 Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 10 Christopher Knopp, of 28 Bonnie Way, appeared. Mr. Knopp said he is the contract vendee of 28 Bonnie Way and will be the builder as well. Mr. Knopp submitted an application to build a house at that location. Ms. Gallent asked if Mr. Knopp received a copy of the letter from the CZMC. Mr. Knopp said he had not received a copy of the letter from the CZMC, which was provided. Ms. Reader said as a matter of courtesy, the CZMC should send a copy of any correspondence to the applicant prior to the Board's meeting. Ms. Aisen asked Mr. Knopp if he was aware of the history of the property and does he understand the reasons why the last application was ultimately withdrawn. Mr. Knopp said he was not aware of the history, does know that someone else had previously submitted an application to build a house on this property and does not understand why it went no further. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Knopp looked at the Minutes of previous meetings. Mr. Knopp said he had looked at previous Minutes. Ms. Aisen said the last persons interested in developing the property stopped at a certain point because there were serious concerns about the impact on the wetlands and flooding on Bonnie Way. Ms. Gallent said all that transpired on this matter is reflected in the Planning Board minutes. Mr. Athey, the Environmental Coordinator, said within the past year a channel was dug out behind the applicant's property, on the road where it comes out of a pipe and where it goes into the Sheldrake. Ms. Aisen said there is also a question about the water that came from the Leatherstocking Trail under the part of Bonnie Way that is at a right angle. The water came under the house at the corner and emptied onto the street side of the stream. They also lifted up the manhole on Bonnie Way, because the Board was told there was a 48 in. pipe. When done there was not a 48 in. pipe, but two 24 in. pipes. There was a question about the water coming from New Rochelle into the Leatherstocking Trail under Bonnie Way and if it had a way of passing through. Ms. Reader said because of the recognition of the issues that came up during the last application for a similar project at this location and because it has been recorded that there may have been changes in the Town in the storm drainage in that vicinity, she asked the secretary to request that Mr. Altieri, the Town Administrator, be present at the next meeting to bring the Board and the public up-to-date and perhaps determine what has been done, and how it impacts this application. Ms. Reader also said it might be helpful for Mr. Knopp to go through the Planning Board file. He may be proposing to build a house at a different location. It might be beneficial to everyone if Mr. Knopp is able to show how this project may differ from the previous proposal and how that might impact favorably or negatively on the environment. Mr. Knopp made some comparisons of the previous proposal and said that the current proposal is closer to Bonnie Way. Ms. Reader asked if it is further away from the stream and closer to the McCarthy property? Mr. Knopp said, in addition, the garage is now in the front. It was previously proposed to be in the back and a lot of impervious surface is now gone. Mr. Capicotto asked if Mr. Knopp will be chipping out about 6 ft. of rock. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Knopp said probably not. He did not know. Ms. Reader asked what engineer Mr. Knopp is using. Mr. Knopp said Gabriel Senor. Ms. Reader asked that the secretary provide copies of previous information,pertinent to this matter for all Board members and the applicant. Ms. Gallent said the matter cannot be voted upon by the Board until the requests of the CZMC for additional information are satisfied. Mr. Knopp said the proposed landscaping is not included with the application, but the remaining items requested by the CZMC will be done. Mr. Capicotto said the first item may require a wetlands expert. Mr. Papazian asked if Mr. Knopp has looked into the placement of the house, as far as the runoff and drainage problem in the area, and is he is fully prepared to address the water problem. Mr. Knopp said he had. Mr. Papazian asked why Mr. Knopp located the house in the area proposed. Mr. Knopp said it has nothing to do with water, but with the existing rock. Mr. Papazian said as far as the driveway is concerned, the placement is helpful. Mr. Knopp said he thinks it is, as it limits the impervious surface by putting the garage in front, as compared to the back per the last application. Mr. Papazian said Mr. Knopp will have to address the issues that arose in the last application for a wetlands permit on this site. He is trying to get feedback, as to the water problems in the area and what has been done to alleviate these problems. Ms. Reader said, for clarification purposes, it is not a water problem because of Sheldrake water rising, but because of flooding that happens above Mr. Knopp's house on the street and the way the water flows. Mr. Capicotto said the street in front of the property is at a low point. Ms. Reader asked if Mr. Knopp is going to be the builder. Mr. Knopp said yes. He added that in the various municipalities, it is standard that any construction, whether an addition or new, cannot increase the runoff from a particular property onto anybody's property. Therefore, the storm water situation on this particular lot has to be addressed. Ms. Reader said it would be advisable to have Mr. Knopp's engineer, Mr. Senor, present at the next meeting, along with a water and/or wetlands expert. Mr. Darsky recommends the applicant read the file, to anticipate questions that will arise. Ms. Reader asked the secretary if there is also a video tape in the original file which was submitted by the opponents to the previous application. Ms. Roma said she did not currently have the video tape, but will look into that matter. Planning Board September 9, 1998 Page 12 Dr. Mason said the applicant will run into the same problems as the previous applicant, and should have constructive solutions to the problems. Mr. Knopp asked that he not be penalized for a previous application that did not satisfy the Board. Ms. Aisen said the Board wants Mr. Knopp, before signing any contract, to be aware of the problems. Mr. Papazian said the Board will not be prejudiced by the previous application. The Board wants the applicant to be educated by what previously happened on this particular parcel. Ms. Reader said it was not a question of dissatisfaction with the previous applicant, rather the issues were the topography of the site and the course of storm water. Ms. Gallent said the previous applicant withdrew his application. The Board is using the previous application as a point of reference only and Mr. Knopp should be assured that he will get a fair hearing on his application before the Planning Board. Ms. Gallent said the record should reflect this application was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board by letter dated September 10, 1998. Dr. Mason asked the applicant's anticipated starting date. Mr. Knopp said he will build when he is able to build. Mr. Capicotto informed Mr. Knopp that in addition to the comments from the CZMC that Mr. Knopp will address, he would like more information regarding the final grading. Ms. Gallent informed the Board that this is a Type II Action having no significant impact on the environment as determined by New York State or corresponding local law, therefore requiring no further action under SEQRA. After further discussion regarding the scheduling of a Public Hearing on this project, on a motion made by Ms. Harrington and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that a Public Hearing for this matter be scheduled for the October 14, 1998 Planning Board meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 14, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Ms. Aisen, seconded by Mr. Darsky, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 10:05 p.m. )/ Marguerite R a, Recording Secretary